I stayed away from win percentage because it doesn't account for strength of schedule. A 7-6 Big Ten team is different from a 7-6 Big East team. The team ratings I used account for strength of schedule. You could probably use any decent ranking algorithm though.

Second, the method. I took a 4 year window of Rivals ratings and used regression to predict the next year's ratings by my algorithm. For example, the 2009 through 2012 recruiting ratings are fit to the team ratings for the 2012 season. The regression calculates a best fit to the team performance from 2005 through 2012.

Those factors, such as better coaches, better facilities, certainly affect the type of recruits a school gets. Think of the recruiting ratings as some kind of aggregate indicator of all these factors.

In the big picture, I wasn't trying to isolate the effect of getting better recruits. Should leave that to the Mathlete. I just wanted to ask how far one could get based on the number of points Rivals assigned each team each year.

3. Burke and Hardaway try to do everything themselves with 1 on 1 moves

It's just human nature that stars want to single handedly bring their team back when behind. Anyone who has ever played a pick up game knows that. But it's not the most efficient way to crawl back in the game. Better drive and kick, and keep shooting.

Michigan takes the rematch because of the low likelihood they get behind Indiana in A2. I hope and actually believe their defensive intensity will be higher as well.

That's the same crap that Peter Wolfe uses in his college football rankings that are a part of the BCS. While it's not as bad as other BCS polls (like Billingsley), I do think it gives extra weight to teams that have played more games. That shouldn't matter in college basketball though. Still, it's advisable to use margin of victory. No, mandatory.

Brian is just playing the odds. He knows that the likelihood that Michigan wins it all heading into the tourney is probably less than 10%. And those odds will be about as large as any team gets (Florida will be higher, most likely). Everyone is right to be excited about this team, and who wouldn't be with Burke kicking out to some deadly shooters. But Brian is rightfully trying to temper the enthusiam.

I never thought I'd see the day that Stanford's defense would be held up as a model unit. On a Michigan blog. Miracles do happen.

Stanford's defense is vastly improved this year. You could see it in the spring game. It's a lot like the miracles that Mattison has performed here. Players improve, schemes are good, defense looks great. Of course, it also helps that they faced an overrated freshman Oregon QB.

I just don't understand how Ohio State can be so bad at pass protection. If you look at sack rate (sacks / (pass attempts + sacks)), their 8.8% is 112th in the nation. Even worse that the 88th you quote. Last year, their sack rate was 15.8%, worst in the nation.

If the defense plays up to potential, Devin plays a good game and the turnover gods don't piss on us, we have a good shot of winning this game. Very close to 50-50 on the road.

I think it's certain that the B1G is making cash in the short term. I would love to come back to these previous two comments 10 years from now. For the record, I can't live without cable as a sports fan.

I would state this 6% a different way. Given the uncertainty in knowing the true pass completion percentages for shotgun and under center, there's a 6% chance that Denard is actually better in the shotgun than under center. Or there's a 94% likelihood that ESPN is right and Denard throws better from under center.